Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The 61st Division was a 2nd-Line TA division raised at the start of the Second World War. While it did not deploy overseas, it did undertake several varied and interesting roles within the UK. The article passed its GA review back in 2016. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria, and look forward to further refining the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments by Ian

  • Copyedited as usual so let me know any concerns; outstanding points:
    CE looks good, thanks Ian.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice you use "ize" instead of "ise", which is fine by me because I understand it's actually a myth that British spelling requires "ise", but make sure you're consistent and be prepared for people to tell you you should use "ise"... ;-)
      Ha! This is what happens when a Brit goes and lives in the US; the "ise" slowly becomes "ize"s :P As you say, there may be future arguments of one variation over the other; so now they are all "ise"s :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the ongoing efforts and some regiments being able to recruit the required numbers to form new battalions, the whole process had – in the words of historian James P. Levy – "not progressed beyond the paper stage when [the Second World War] began in September." By the outbreak of the war, the division was active... -- these two sentences seem to clash, one implying things were only at paper stage by the start of war, and the next stating the division was active by then.
      Totally overlooked this conflict. I have reworded based off what both Perry and Levy have to say. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with your rewording, and will look to implement that in other articles on the same subject.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox:
    • I don't think flag icons and the link to the UK are necessary, but I won't press the point if you're keen on them.
      Yes, I would prefer to keep them :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess for consistency you could add a few more notable commanders, since more than one appear to have WP articles.
      Having read through the profiles for the other guys, I feel that "notable" would really fall to one of them. I have included Schreiber, although if you think additional ones are required I shall take another look.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure and depth of coverage seem fair.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
  • When I get time I'll see about conducting a source review...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AustralianRupert: G'day, looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, thank you for reviews and suggestions AustralianRupert. I have once more attempted to address the points you have raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5:

If i see some more issues then i put them here, good luck with the page it looks good. CPA-5 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for the review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I hope it will get an A-class good luck further on. CPA-5 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Hawkeye7

  • "For some TA divisions, little progress had been made by the time the Second World War began; for others, they were able to do so within a matter of weeks." Which category did the 61st Division fall into?
    I have been unable to find a source that states when the division actually formed. All sources seem to parrot Joslen; the division was active by the time the war rolled around. Any suggestions on how to better bridge the sentence in question with the latter one stating the division was active?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 15 April, Carton de Wiart, as well as the divisional staff, were deployed to Norway, and Major-General Edmond Schreiber assumed command of the division." With a new HQ staff? And what happened to him after Carton de Wiart returned? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Joslen, when Schreiber took command he did so with a new staff. Joslen does not state if they remained following the return of the others from Norway. I have also added in a little info on what happened to Schreiber.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: G'day, Hawkeye, this review looks like it is close to wrapping up. Could you please take a look and advise if your comments have been addressed? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel66

[edit]

Just a quick drive-by for the nonce.

Lingzhi

[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.